The United Nations (UN) has stood as a bastion for peace, human rights, and the protection of human dignity considering tumultuous conditions countries face in times of war, unrest and poverty. This reflection looks at the UN from a pragmatic point of view, identifying issues specific to the current circumstance of war and its impact on the Global South. The UN is often associated as an organisation that is powerless and idealistic to its own detriment. Pro-Global South groupings, like BRICS, identifies the UN and its goals as important regarding overall development, like its sustainable development goals. However, the process and capacity of the UN is problematised. 

The UN, Its Formation 

As the Second World War drew to a close in 1945, much of the globe lay in devastation, and there was a shared determination to secure lasting peace. Between 25 April and 26 June that year, delegates from 50 nations convened in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organisation. Over two months, they drafted and signed the Charter that would establish a new body, the UN, intended to prevent a repetition of the catastrophic conflict they had just endured. 

The UN formally came into being on 24 October 1945, four months after the San Francisco gathering concluded, once the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and a majority of other signatories.

More than three-quarters of a century later, the United Nations continues to play a central role in international peace and security, humanitarian aid, human rights, and international law,; particularly when it comes to global policy discourse regarding these issues. Its remit has also expanded beyond the original vision of 1945: today, the UN spearheads the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and coordinates global climate action to curb warming, reflecting its evolving mission in a changing world.

Struggles of the UN

The United Nations has over time increasingly been seen as a puppet in the hands of the five permanent members of the Security Council. It lacks inclusivity, genuine representation, and the reforms demanded by the modern era. In many respects, it has struggled to uphold the very founding vision upon which it was created.

Examples of its shortcomings are numerous. The UN was unable to prevent China’s incursion into India and the subsequent annexation of Aksai Chin. It stood by while the United States and its allies dropped more than 7.5 million tonnes of bombs on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia between 1965 and 1975. It lent support to the invasion of Iraq on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which to this day have never been found. It failed to halt Russia’s annexation of Crimea or the continuing conflict with Ukraine. Most recently, it has been powerless to bring an end to the war between Israel and Hamas, where even the delivery of urgent humanitarian aid remains obstructed.

The organisation was established with the noble aim of preventing a Third World War, and while that has so far been avoided, its inability to avert or resolve successive wars and crises is steadily undermining its credibility. Since its creation, there have been no meaningful amendments to its structure to reflect today’s global realities. Regions such as Africa and South America continue to lack representation among the veto powers, leaving influence concentrated in the hands of those who emerged victorious from the Second World War.

The United Nations has over time increasingly been seen as a puppet in the hands of the five permanent members of the Security Council. It lacks inclusivity, genuine representation, and the reforms demanded by the modern era. In many respects, it has struggled to uphold the very founding vision upon which it was created.

Examples of its shortcomings are numerous. The UN was unable to prevent China’s incursion into India and the subsequent annexation of Aksai Chin. It stood by while the United States and its allies dropped more than 7.5 million tonnes of bombs on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia between 1965 and 1975. It lent support to the invasion of Iraq on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which to this day have never been found. It failed to halt Russia’s annexation of Crimea or the continuing conflict with Ukraine. Most recently, it has been powerless to bring an end to the war between Israel and Hamas, where even the delivery of urgent humanitarian aid remains obstructed.

The organisation was established with the noble aim of preventing a Third World War, and while that has so far been avoided, its inability to avert or resolve successive wars and crises is steadily undermining its credibility. Since its creation, there have been no meaningful amendments to its structure to reflect today’s global realities. Regions such as Africa and South America continue to lack representation among the veto powers, leaving influence concentrated in the hands of those who emerged victorious from the Second World War.

The UN as a political tool

A central problem is the veto power held by the five permanent members of the Security Council. Intended to safeguard global peace, it has instead become a political tool used to protect national interests and allies. Russia blocked the creation of a tribunal on the MH17 air disaster in 2014, while the United States has repeatedly used its veto to shield Israel. Few of the permanent members show willingness to reform the system or extend veto rights to other deserving nations such as India, Japan, Germany or Brazil. Thus many sought to reform from the outside through groupings like BRICS.

The UN also faces persistent funding shortages, as many member states fail to meet financial commitments. This has led to humanitarian programmes being suspended, such as the World Food Programme’s voucher scheme for 1.7 million Syrian refugees. Alongside this, the UN’s sprawling and outdated structure, with multiple agencies and overlapping mandates, often suffers from inefficiency and poor coordination.

The organisation has also been criticised for political bargaining over leadership roles, with influential positions sometimes awarded for diplomatic convenience rather than merit, as seen when Saudi Arabia was controversially elected to a women’s rights body. Finally, terrorism and refugee crises remain areas where the UN response has fallen short. While aid is provided, millions of displaced people still lack food, healthcare and education, and challenges such as child malnutrition, climate change, women’s safety and disease outbreaks continue to expose its limitations.

BRICS and the UN

The BRICS grouping does not see the UN as a rival organisation, but they do see it as one with flaws, particularly affecting the Global South, whose voices are muted. First, there is not a single African voice on the UN  security council. Talks and planning to include the African Union (AU) as a permanent member remains a distant murmur. Second, the UN has actively alienated many African leaders by failing to contextually understand country specific contexts without enlisting its democratic prejudice. Third, the UN has a major struggle with its peacekeepers who sexually exploit and abuse persons within the country/region of jurisdiction. These figures have been increasing over the years. 

BRICS identifies the UN as highlighting real-world issues, irrespective of its faults. Issues brought about by UN Sustainable Development are important to the grouping in order to achieve true freedom and dignity in the Global South and in times of war.

By Cole Jackson

Lead Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group 

Chinese & South American Specialist

**The Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.

** MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE https://bricscg.com/

** Follow https://x.com/brics_daily on X/Twitter for daily BRICS+ updates

Source link